Disruption, Innovation and the Art of Business Architecture

Topics

Simona Lovin is a seasoned business and IT executive, currently driving operational excellence in Cognosante's portfolio of Veterans Affairs engagements. Previously, she was the founder of Andwyrde LLC, a management consulting firm assisting large organizations work through the challenges of adopting Business Architecture and Enterprise Architectur...

Over the past decade, the Business Architecture community of practice has built a firm foundation of methods, practices and tools that allow organizations to map their place in the business world, assess the viability of their capabilities, and chart a course towards their future. And yet, Business Architecture still has a long way to go to permeate the public consciousness. In fact, while concepts such as change, disruption, and innovation have fired up the imagination of entire industries, Business Architecture’s public brand as a game-changer has drawn more muted reactions, as the Google Trends diagram below starkly demonstrates.

This article posits that the traditional methods comprising the standard Business Architecture canon assume an orderly, slow-changing and relatively predictable business environment. An environment devoid of any major external or internal upheavals; an environment that can “wait” for the Business Architect to, well, architect. In other words – it assumes an environment which doesn’t exist in real life.

In real life, business organizations are subject to continuous change which occurs not linearly, but rather in fits and spurts, as a result of external events and stimuli which impact the organization in various ways, and in turn trigger internal reactions and responses of lower or higher intensity. Thermodynamics (the branch of physics that deals with the relationship between heat, work, temperature, and energy in a system) stipulates that in a closed system, the level of disorder can only increase as such systems tend to move from ordered behavior to more random behavior. The measure of disorder in a closed system is called entropy (from the Greek entropia - "changing" or "transformation"). While a business organization is an open system rather than a closed one – since it exchanges information (energy) and physical resources (matter) with its environment - the concept of entropy still applies albeit in a modified form, as a measurement of the system's probability to change.

The Viable System Model

One of the first comprehensive models to describe an enterprise’s organizational structure as a viable, autonomous system, organized to meet the demands of its environment and survive in a changing context, was the Viable System Model[1], proposed by cybernetician Stafford Beer in 1972.

Mr. Beer used this model to advance a mathematical method for calculating the entropy of such a system, and to propose a set of areas critical to the success and sustainability of an organizational system. These areas include culture, leadership, strategy, internal communications, and internal controls, amongst others. As entropy builds up in the organization (usually as a result of environmental pressures and internal disruptors), emergent behaviors can manifest in any of these areas.

Whether such emergent properties are positive or negative in nature has a profound effect on the direction the company takes and its survivability. Innovation is an example of a positive emergent behavior in an organization. At the negative end of the spectrum, an organization may slide into toxic practices such as theft and industrial espionage.

In fact, the concept of entropy is highly applicable in explaining the evolution of business organizations. Much like a coral reef, an ant colony, or a slum in Kolkata, studies have shown that a business organization is a complex, adaptive, social system composed of hierarchically organized components - such as the Board of Directors, the executive management, business units, Finance, HR, project teams and so on. The organizational units that make up the business are interdependent, in constant and non-simple interaction with each other, have distinct functional, spatial and temporal boundaries, and are influenced by their surrounding environment. The enterprise as a whole and within its parts has organizational self-awareness and, through its many components, organizes itself for survival and growth. As the environment in which it functions becomes increasingly complex – whether as a result of globalization, political changes, resource shortages, or shifts in consumer preferences, to name a few examples – the enterprise and its many components must also change and adapt. The adaptive decisions and actions made by the organization in response to such external stimuli yield internal responses that can take a variety of forms - organizational realignments, functional realignments, right-sizing, introducing new technologies, adopting new processes, or hiring the kind of people who ‘can make things happen’ – in other words, disruptors. Such disruptors create friction, friction increases the level of entropy in the organization, and the rising entropy generates the conditions under which new behaviors can arise. These new and unexpected behaviors are referred to as ‘emergent properties’, and they can be of different types – new business strategies, novel governance models, cutting-edge technologies and skills, or innovative processes such as co-creation.

New Vistas for Business Architecture

The complexity inherent in business organizations is ripe with possibilities for architects to build on the existing Business Architecture body of knowledge to create new, innovative offshoots of the discipline that can more flexibly support the nonlinear, rapidly-changing nature of business. Correlating the business concepts described so far into an enterprise-level view (below) makes it easier to spot the areas where Business Architecture practices have already caught and are yielding valuable insights to organizations, as well as the areas still off the beaten path for Business Architects.

This article recommends that Business Architects familiarize themselves with methods from adjacent domains such as strategic planning, management consulting and system engineering, and complement their traditional repertoire with practices and techniques suitable for the study of complex systems. A summary of recommended practices (and reading materials) grouped by the supported business concept is provided below.

With the exception of the Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis method and the occasional foray into Business Model analysis, the methods suggested may not yet be adopted by mainstream Business Architects. Leveraging such methods is essential in recognizing that a business system is an open system, constantly exchanging information and resources with its surrounding environment, and that actions and reactions within the business are driven to a large extent by its interaction with its immediate environment.

The Five Forces (Harvard Business School, Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness).

2. Frameworks, practices and tools supporting the analysis of adaptive decisions and actions

In order to adapt and grow, business enterprises contend with a wide array of decisions - from long-term, strategy-setting decisions, to immediate-term pivoting, investment or divestment decisions. Such a broad spectrum of decisions requires a correspondingly varied repertoire of methods and tools to support sound, informed decision-making, ranging in complexity and level of abstraction from the traditional capability mapping and planning to the innovative use of predictive modeling.

3. Frameworks, practices and tools supporting the analysis of the organization’s assets, controls and operational capabilities

Architecting the assets, controls and operational capabilities[i] of an enterprise has been the bread-and-butter of Business Architects and Enterprise Architects for some time now, and there is a substantial body of literature describing the relevant practices, methods and tools – one of the best exemplars being the Business Architecture Body of Knowledge® (BIZBOK® Guide) developed by the Business Architecture Guild. This article recommends complementing Business Architecture methods with elements of Enterprise Architecture and decision modeling practices.

Applicable Framework, Practice or Tool

Suggested Reading

Business Process Modeling

Information Modeling

Organization Modeling

Enterprise Architecture frameworksand models

Decision Modeling

Business Architecture Body of Knowledge® (BIZBOK® Guide) (The Business Architecture Guild).

4. Frameworks, practices and tools supporting the analysis of business disruptors

The methods suggested below have traditionally been the domain of academics, researchers, engineers, mathematicians, statisticians and data scientists. The Business Architecture practices of the future could leverage advances in these adjacent domains to rapidly model, simulate and assess the impacts of adaptive decisions and actions on the organization, identify gaps in the enterprise architecture stack, select the areas that can most benefit from a disruptive intervention, plan the disruptive intervention, and evaluate the probability and impact of potential outcomes.

5. Frameworks, practices and tools supporting the analysis of emergent properties such as innovation

“Innovation is the endogenous result of the system dynamics: it does not fall from heaven, as standard economics suggests. Innovation is the result of the collective economic action of agents: innovation is a path dependent, collective process that takes place in a localized context, if, when and where a sufficient number of creative reactions are made in a coherent, complementary and consistent way. As such innovation is one of the key emergent properties of an economic system viewed as a dynamic complex system" (Prof. Cristiano Antonelli of BRICK[i]). As this quote suggests, planning for innovation requires a comprehensive analysis of the underlying causes and systemic conditions that make emergent properties such as innovation possible. To provide real support in identifying (or better still, predicting) emergent properties in the system, advanced Business Architecture practices will have to be developed to incorporate methodological and practical elements from the theories and methods offered here.

Comments

Hi Doug, I am delighted that you have enjoyed the article and found it informative. You are rightfully pointing out the difficulties in 'selling' Business Architecture services. I think they are due to a combination of factors - on the one hand, the highest-order benefit provided by Bus Arch is in guiding the strategic planning process, BUT many executives look at strategic planning as being a dog-and-pony show to begin with. The tactical outputs generated by Bus Arch (process architectures, information architectures) are easier to grasp but their ROI is hard to measure. My recommendation is to tailor the sales strategy to the audience:
- for CEOs who do not see the value of strategic planning - don't bother marketing to them, it would be a waste of time
- for CEOs who do value big-picture strategic planning, highlight how Buz Arch supports business strategy setting (#1 and #2 in my article)
- for COOs, who tend to be more focused on operational improvements, #3, #4 and #5 in the article will offer some ideas
- for CIOs, #3 provides a listing of tactical outputs critical to the design of enterprise information systems
My own experience has been mixed. What I have seen is that selling Bus Arch is a slow process that takes several business cycles to gain momentum. One of the obstacles in selling are the Business Architects themselves, who are so focused on the craft that they seldom make good salespeople. Ideally, a business looking to take Bus Arch services to market should hire professional business developers who can "massage" the Business Architecture message into approachable business language, tailored to each client's needs.
Thank you for your comments and great questions, Doug!

Thanks Simona for an article that provoked a lot of thought for me on a couple of fronts.
As a newer comer to the world of Business Architecture from serving as a Business Analyst for over twenty years, your post reminded me that there is such a significant spider web of related disciplines that practitioners must at least have general awareness of. This phenomena, based on the references you offered up (THANKS!) is even more deeply rooted in Business Architecture.
Also, being new to this community, I wanted to highlight something that you so rightly pointed out. The graphic showing the minimal "radar blip" around Business Architecture while the rest of the planet excites itself over new disruptions is a serious issue that I've experienced for years as an analyst. I've seen countless times that the individual practitioner must serve as the loudest voice to promote practical value and application of business analysis in enterprises. I associate this to a number of symptoms that all stem from lack of awareness across the tops of organizations, with the net effect trickling down to look like something like this
I don't understand Business Analysis as a Seller, so cannot sell it as a value-adding service or support capability
I don't understand Business Analysis as an HR/Recruiter, so I don't know how to find, hire, utilize, manage or retain these types of skilled resources for my organization
I don't understand Business Analysis as an Executive/Non-executive Leader, so don't realize the value propositions these resource can bring to what we already do (or DO bring if they are already present).
Interesting that BA also is an acronym for Business Architecture, as it would be just as easy to be talking about that here. One of the biggest missing pieces is a community of practice that actively and assertively gets the story told into the top levels of leadership in organizations, because without it even big-mouths like me are likely to struggle to find the right audience to promote our professional value.
Here's my "newbie" question for the readers and yourself. "What and/or how does the Business ARCHITECTURE community do to get the message heard now, while the discipline is beginning to grow?"
Thank you again.
Doug Goldberg

This is a great article that reminds me that there are many aspects to a central course of study, but are often hidden or represented less. I also appreciate the excellent reading /study references. I will definitely be jumping into some of these references, so thanks!
This post comes at crucial point for me that I thought I would share here. I've been a Business Analyst for over 20 years and am just now immersing myself in the concepts and disciplines of Business Architecture. One thing missing here for me was how the BizArch community and professional leadership of that community is leading the education and marketing efforts at the enterprise level. I wonder about this, because this has been a long-standing issue in the Business Analysis for many years, in which individual practitioners have been the driving forces of change in their respective organizations. This article and the sobering graphic point out that blips on the radar don't generate understanding, awareness....or money to move things forward. I've seen this manifest itself as no business analysis sold, as sellers don't know what it is, none sold as no one can identify value delivery, none sold, as customers can't "see" immediate value and inability to provide adequate career paths because HR can't figure out what we do either.
So, I am on this precipice of moving to a new domain that is grown in similar soil. I've found that without organized community outreach and education that reaches into the tops of org structures and trickles down, even the loudest voices screaming from the bottom about value aren't enough. I know there are some enterprises that get the concepts and value re: BizArch, but what are your experiences in selling (externally or as internal business cases) the need for this need and actually acquiring funding and support?
I've been very eager to ask this question to someone in the BizArch community, so being new, I'll start here....How are we dealing with this? What issues are you running into and are there good solutions?
Thanks, Simona, for a very thought-provoking post!